Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Wait, you mean relational databases actually can scale? Say it ain't so! - end sarcasm

Personally, I've always been wowed at what youtube does with mysql. See the entire vitess[1] project for an idea. Thanks github for writing this up though, very neat.

[1] https://github.com/youtube/vitess




You do realise that most of people using MySQL at that scale aren't using it as a relational store ? They are sharding in the application layer and using it as a dumb key-value store.

No one would argue that MySQL's database engines can't scale. But you could argue that the relational model doesn't scale.


I think at massive scale a lot of models break down, and I would agree sharding is the key to huge scale.

I often see "MySQL doesn't scale" posts which simply isn't true. I just wish people would stick with it longer and iron out their problems.


"But you could argue that the relational model doesn't scale."

How would one make such an argument? The relational model is simply a combination of logic and set theory used for manipulating data. It's orthogonal to scalability concerns.


Pretty sure he means the relations of a normalized model that fail to scale (either due to complexity (too many joins), or size (too much data for a single node)).


Normalization is also a logical concept (and merely a suggestion when it comes to the relational model, not a requirement) orthogonal to physical scalability concerns. Sometimes people use it loosely, assuming a one-to-one correspondence between a relation and a physical file.

These are important distinctions, because a misconception here leads to entirely the wrong solution.

One thing that does have inherent physical constraints is consistency. That's usually what people mean when they say that the relational model doesn't scale, but it would be much less confusing to just say that. Then there would be no reason to dismiss a relational language when designing scalable systems.


I was poking fun at people who say SQL doesn't scale when what they really mean and don't realize is that normalized schema doesn't work at large scale. I agree that you pretty much have to shard data and "join at the app level" at sufficient size, but the definition of "big data" changes every day.

10 years ago 1T would be "big data" whereas today, 1P would be "big data". I'm waiting for the time when you can get 1P ssd drives for your laptops :)


And they may be based on 'memristor' technology, who's advantage is very low power and 3D physical topology.


[deleted]


Didn't Google scale Adwords primarily with MySQL?


Yes, as well as Youtube, Twitter, and Facebook...


I'm tired of the "lol lets mock NoSQL fanbois" behavior on HN. You fail to realize you are acting exactly like the people you are mocking.

Generally the use case for "scale" with NoSQL isn't that MySQL isn't technically capable. It is a cost/benefit for a specific use case.

For instance, if you are storing counters that are purely tracked via key/value ... MySQL is a terrible choice from a server-cost-to-performance-perspective.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: